Congress, NASA

Adams supports Senate funding for commercial crew

Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) doesn’t see eye to eye with the White House on very many issues, including much of the administration’s space policy. However, recently she has become a more outspoken supporter of one element of that policy, development of commercial vehicles to transport crews to and from the ISS. “As America takes steps towards the next chapter of space exploration, it is imperative that Congress remains vigilant in its support of the efforts of the Commercial Crew and COTS program,” she said Monday at a ceremony at the Kennedy Space Center announcing a deal to bring Boeing’s commercial crew effort, the CST-100, into a former shuttle hangar. “It is imperative that Congress ensure that they have the tools they need to be ready to carry crew to station as soon as is practically possible without sacrificing safety.”

Adams is backing those words with, well, more words, but targeted at two key fellow House members. The Orlando Sentinel reports that Adams has written the chairman and rank member of the House Appropriations Committee, asking them to, among other issues, fund NASA’s commercial crew effort at $500 million, the level the Senate approved earlier this week. “To me, the choice seems clear,” she writes in the letter, dated Thursday and addressed to House Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) and ranking member Norm Dicks (D-WA). “Either we continue spending taxpayer money on seats for the Russian Soyouz [sic], or we invest in our own American companies for the long-term future of human space flight.” Adams chooses the latter, calling the commercial crew program “a vital piece of the future of human space flight” and saying she supports the $500 million in the Senate bill. The House version, approved by appropriators this summer but not taken up by the full House, offered only $312 million for the program.

Adams spoke out in the letter on two more KSC-specific programs funded in the Senate bill: $103 million for shuttle closeout and transition work and $168 million for the 21st Century Launch Complex program, which she calls a “a vital piece of the testing phase for the SLS and MPCV.” However, maintaining her fiscal conservative credentials, she offers to help appropriators “make responsible reductions” to other programs to offset the additional spending she requests. She does not indicate if those reductions should come from other NASA programs or elsewhere within the overall Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriation.

24 comments to Adams supports Senate funding for commercial crew

  • Robert G. Oler

    The SLS block will continue to crack…the old NASA is dying (yeah) RGO

  • SpaceColonizer

    *groin* Great… now I have to stop calling her Sandy *inappropriate reference to a female body part* Adams every time she starts to talk at a hearing. Now I can only do it when she’s shilling for SLS/MPCV.

    Also my guess is that “responsible reductions” are referring to JWST. If so, I disagree with her on that point but see no need to resort to childish mockery as it is at least consistent with the fiscal conservancy she’s supposed to subscribe to, unlike her support for SLS/MPCV which is pure hypocrisy.

  • Hmph.

    Well, Jeff, this is quite interesting, because on October 27 I sent Adams (my district rep) the below letter in e-mail:

    Rep. Adams, I urge that you support the $850 million requested by the Obama administration to fully fund commercial crew development (CCDev) in the FY12 budget.

    As you are aware from the October 26 hearing, any delays only send more U.S. tax dollars to support the Russian space program. It is foolish to reduce the administration’s CCDev request, as not only will we taxpayers be forced to continue paying for the Russian space taxi service but NASA will be forced to rely on the Russians’ sole source monopoly for more years.

    In my opinion, Congress should provide NASA with enough funding to assure that a minimum of two CCDev participants are ready to fly astronauts by 2015. NASA is scheduled to receive final bids in 2012 from the four remaining candidates. The next three years will be critical to assure we can be freed from the Russian monopoly by 2015.

    Several of your colleagues at yesterday’s hearing questioned the companies’ projections for a future private sector market. In my opinion, that’s irrelevant. I do think it will happen, but our immediate concern is selecting and flying at least two CCDev candidates. The rest can take care of itself.

    I ask that you urge your fellow committee members to support 100% funding for FY12 as originally proposed by the administration.

    I haven’t received a response to date, but her sudden change of heart is encouraging.

  • vulture4

    Sandy Adams knows nothing whatsoever about space (due to gerrymandering KSC is never represented by a congressperson from the KSC area). She argued against NASA climate research, saying that it was a liberal conspiracy. Her knowledge of astronomy is limited to such statements as: “it’s evident that the stimulus has only led the country into astronomical debt and even higher unemployment,” This even though unemployment has actually declined since the stimulus was implemented. Nor has she said anything complementary about SpaceX.

    So while I commend your excellent letter, Stephen, it is my guess that someone from Boeing handed her a fat check, or a short stack of them. Money talks, nobody walks.

  • Coastal Ron

    Coincidence that her support comes after Boeing announces plans to build a commercial crew vehicle at KSC? I think not.

    Which just goes to show that Adams and many others in Congress that purport to know anything about the needs of our space program are really just motivated by politics as usual – money for their districts. There is the true disconnect on our space program.

  • vulture4 wrote:

    So while I commend your excellent letter, Stephen, it is my guess that someone from Boeing handed her a fat check, or a short stack of them. Money talks, nobody walks.

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    Which just goes to show that Adams and many others in Congress that purport to know anything about the needs of our space program are really just motivated by politics as usual – money for their districts. There is the true disconnect on our space program.

    I still think she’s a bit of a dim bulb who’s incapable of anything but reciting what’s put in front of her, but at least she’s toned down the nonsensical rhetoric, which is a step in the right direction.

    (Click here for examples of her wackier claims.)

    My guess is she’s finally figured out which way the wind is blowing and decided to go along.

    On a larger scale, everyone involved in the space-industrial complex — NASA, Congress, the White House and the space contractors — seem to have decided to be on the same page for a while with their rhetoric, part of the “grand compromise” that essentially saves ISS and commercial crew in exchange for SLS pork.

    My guess is that someone clued in Adams that we’ve all agreed to make nice, which is why she’s toned it down.

  • Robert G. Oler

    What I am surprised a bit that has gotten so little attention is how all this will play out with the deficit reduction committee. As we lurch to the latest failure of our political system you can see how this is working out. The Military industrial complex (which drawfs the space industrial complex) is moving to save their pork. Allready the representatives of the MIC are moving to undo the bill that gave us the deficit reduction thing…to save military spending when the committee fails. I suspect that this fails as well, but what it means is that none of the appropriations are likely to be worth a darn, as our political system disintegrates under the pressure of the deficit hawks who really dont want to cut the deficit.

    Robert G. Oler

  • vulture4

    As far as Adams’ speeches are concerned, she apparently is unaware that the Commercial Crew program is an initiative of the Obama administration. To hear her talk it was her idea. She continues to attack Obama for spending the taxpayers’ money while simultaneously taking credit for the fact that the taxpayers’ money is being spent in her district on a program she opposed.

  • Boeing is starting to pull more Conservatives into the commercial camp. That’s good. Given America’s current and foreseeable launch capabilities not fully funding commercial so as to achieve the earliest operating ability is foolish.

    Another writer pointed out, funding at $312M might not offer SpaceX enough incentive to follow the NASA rules in completion and sale of their crewed vehicle. That NASA demands they increase their compliance costs and then Congress cuts the funding available reduces incentive.

    On the other hand China is certainly studying the SpaceX low cost model and will have it duplicated by or before SLS ever flies. Low cost space access is a narrow window of opportunity, one of the few “real” American advantages in the world. We either make the most of it right now, or we watch others do so in a very short time.

  • Dave

    Maybe, just maybe, if Obama’s stimulus II package is accepted by Republicans, Congress can retarget 1 or 2 percent to NASA to support CCDev, SLS and JWST. If Obama wants to squander money on poorly thought out stimulus package at least he could spend the money on something that I support.

  • DCSCA

    “Adams supports Senate funding for commercial crew…”

    A Republican and a socialist. Alert Mr. Limbaugh in his radio fortress in Palm Beach.

  • vulture4

    Anything the government “saves” will be retargeted to tax cuts. Even if the stimulus plan passes (and John Boehner has pledged to kill it) federal spending will be slashed. NASA will not escape the ax.

    So who to throw to the wolves? Commercial? JWST? SLS? Orion? Commercial isn’t even big enough to make a difference, and it might possibly actually be useful. JWST is bloated but at least has some hope of completing its mission. SLS and Orion would sacrifice a lot of jobs, and the Republicans will blame Obama for “destroying the space program” and “sacrificing American leadership” while simultaneously blaming him for increasing the deficit through excessive spending.

    But in reality, SLS and Orion (Constellation, the Sequel) have no goal except to create jobs. NASA needs to save its meager dollars for missions that will actually get off the ground.

  • amightywind

    A Republican and a socialist. Alert Mr. Limbaugh in his radio fortress in Palm Beach.

    Again, the editor desperately seeking validation for a flaccid space program by scouring the opinions of the GOP fringe.

    Here is a more typical insider opinion.

    On the other hand China is certainly studying the SpaceX low cost model and will have it duplicated by or before SLS ever flies.

    And what model would that be? Building an inferior rocket (even for the 1960’s) at exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, hyping it endlessly, then never flying it? Only in Obama’s America.

  • vulture4 wrote:

    So who to throw to the wolves? Commercial? JWST? SLS? Orion?

    The biggest problem is that commercial doesn’t have many passionate defenders in Congress, because it doesn’t direct pork back to their districts.

    On the other hand, no commercial, no space station. Or at the least, we keep buying flights on Russian Soyuz vehicles.

    The pro-SLS porkers keep peddling it as a “backup” for ISS access because they foresee the commercial program being smothered in its crib. We all know SLS is a joke as an ISS crew rotation vehicle, but that might be the direction we’re headed.

    The commercial people need to get it in gear and fly ASAP. Once they’ve demonstrated their viability, it will be harder for Congress to shut them down.

    It should be noted that the current language in the Senate version of the FY12 budget attempts to force NASA to prioritize SLS at the expense of commercial crew. Read this language:

    For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the conduct and support of exploration research and development activities, including research, development, operations, support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities; program management, personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, $3,775,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2013: Provided, That not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, not less than $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy lift launch vehicle system which shall have a lift capacity not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously, $500,000,000 shall be for commercial spaceflight activities, and $275,000,000 shall be for exploration research and development: Provided further, That $192,600,000 of the funds provided for commercial spaceflight activities shall only be available after the NASA Administrator certifies to the Committees on Appropriations, in writing, that NASA has published the required notifications of NASA contract actions implementing the acquisition strategy for the heavy lift launch vehicle system identified in section 302 of Public Law 111-267 and has begun to execute relevant contract actions in support of development of the heavy lift launch vehicle system: Provided further, That funds made available under this heading within this Act may be transferred to `Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration’ for construction activities related to the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle and the heavy lift launch vehicle system: Provided further, That funds so transferred shall be subject to the 5 percent but shall not be subject to the 10 percent transfer limitation described under the Administrative Provisions in this Act for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall be available until September 30, 2017, and shall be treated as a reprogramming under section 505 of this Act. (Emphasis added)

    Of the $500 million for commercial crew, $192 million will be impounded until NASA meets certain milestones for SLS. Interestingly, the $192 million is about the difference between the House and Senate versions for FY12 commercial funding.

    So it’s pretty clear that the Senators are attempting to smother commercial in the crib, just as I suggested.

  • Dennis

    Let us hope that Mr. Musk will prove himself with his up and coming COTS mission. If he succeeds, then JUST perhaps, the government will take another look at what he offers. He will either succeed or flop, the time is ticking down. I see the go ahead for a 2013 test flight of Orion, on a Delta, has been given.

  • Byeman

    “Here is a more typical insider opinion.”

    An astronaut is not an insider. They are no more in the loop than any other NASA worker. As usual, windy shows his ignorance.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ November 6th, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    “… Building an inferior rocket (even for the 1960′s) at exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, hyping it endlessly, then never flying it? ”

    You mean overpromising and under performing, through creative use of smoke, mirrors and slight-of-hand. We call it Reaganomics.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ November 6th, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    Building an inferior rocket (even for the 1960′s) at exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, hyping it endlessly, then never flying it?

    What a perfect description of the Ares/SLS rockets:

    “exorbitant cost to the taxpayer” – Strike One
    “hyping it endlessly” – Strike Two
    “then never flying it” – Strike Three

    Wow – a moment of clarity from Windy.

  • amightywind

    You mean overpromising and under performing, through creative use of smoke, mirrors and slight-of-hand. We call it Reaganomics.

    Yeah, those were the bad old days. Explosive growth. Russians on their heels. Morning in America. What we are doing today is a lot better. I’d much rather borrow 43 cents on the dollar from the Chinese to pay billionaire hobbyists to rediscover rockets we built 50 years ago and pay extravagant pensions to the indolent. We’ll see how that argument works for ya next year.

  • Dennis

    Until, and I emphasize UNTIL, we start thinking outside of the rocket box, spaceflight will remain outside the reach of most private citizens, period. Only the very rich or government sponsored people will ever get to go. Sorry guys whether its SLS or SpaceX, costs will remain prohibitive for most.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Until, and I emphasize UNTIL, we start thinking outside of the rocket box, spaceflight will remain outside the reach of most private citizens, period.

    Dennis, don’t be an idiot. Until the laws of physics are changed spaceflight will never be low cost enough for “most private citizens”.

    If you need proof, just look at the corporate jet market – “most private citizens” can’t afford to travel by corporate jet, but that hasn’t stopped a HUGE corporate jet market from being established. The same will be true for spaceflight.

    We don’t need billions of people flying to space in order to establish a growing presence in space. Let’s work on those things that let us increase the number of people flying to space each year from single digits to ten’s per year by the end of this decade, and from ten’s of people per year to hundreds next decade.

    Focus on todays problem (incrementally lowering the cost to access space) instead of things like which lunar crater Walmart should build it’s first off-world store in.

  • Dennis

    Coastal Ron Im not being an idiot. Im thinking Space elevator, as a much needed and cheaper way to access space. It can happen again if funding is provided and the tech is pushed. As long as we keep with standard rocket development, colonization wont take place any time soon.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ November 9th, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    Im thinking Space elevator, as a much needed and cheaper way to access space.

    It’s going to cost the U.S. Taxpayer about $30B to get the SLS ready for it’s first 130mt flight – that’s four people going to space. A space elevator would likely cost $1-2 Trillion or so for the first passenger. Who is paying for that?

    And if we only have accommodations for six people in space right now, where are all those thousands and millions of “private citizens” riding the space elevator going to go? Who is paying to build all those accommodations and “things to do” for everyone once they get up there?

    Now you can stomp your feet and prognosticate about how space vacations should be cheaper than vacationing in Hawaii, but you’d look like an idiot – don’t be an idiot. Space is the harshest environment mankind has ever attempted to survive in, and that means it will be the most expensive. Sorry for bursting your bubble.

Leave a Reply to Byeman Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>